So your excuse for evil is that life is brutal and tough? I hardly agree that life would be so without a criminal gang robbing everyone every day of their lives. Imagine how much richer everyone would be with 50-75% more money, because that's how much is stolen from them now.

You are putting forth a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy. You are saying that without a state it can only be worse, you are saying there are no other options. I think monopolies provide poor service and don't care for their customers, do you think governments are the only organizations that could provide things like food for the poor or security? All of these things can be provided by the market easily. I don't think having rulers and monopolies and using violence is a good way to organize society.

I do not beliee that anyone or any organization is capable or suitable to organize the world, like everything else in nature, it spontaneously would order itself if given the chance. The force I call the market would handle that just fine without a monopoly of force. How arrogant to think you or some "great man" issmarter than nature/god/the market?

But I will answer anyway, people would resist the mafia because they are clearly viewed as criminals whereas the state has an air of authority to it-even though it is illegitimate. So no, the mafia would not take over the roads. We already have a mafia that has taken over the roads and does not allow competition, it is called the government.

"Taxes on transporting goods would still be paid, with cash, life, or goods as the road owners see fit."

Taxes would be paid to who in the absence of a state? How do you know goods would even be transported on roads and not by some other means if the market for technology was completely open in the future and not held back by the state? I doubt we would be driving cars right now if the state did not exist, i think we would have far more advanced technology.

You are saying that you know exactly what will happen in the future, that's pretty bOld of you. In a free market of someone provides a bad service, you can reject their service and tart your own competing service. In our current system the mafia controlled the roads and no one can compete with them, they kill you if you resist, sounds exactly like the system you are warning against.

"anarchy is philosophy without thinking"Another fallacy that speaks for itself.

BUT WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADSS?? Watch the video i linked earlier about who will build the roads. What you are saying is essentially the same as someone living in the era of chattel slavery and saying; "but who will pick the cotton without the slaves?" not foreseeing the invention of the cotton gin. We will FIND a way to make it work, I am saying that slavery is wrong and should be abolished. You, the one advocating for it has the prove why we should be enslaved and not free.

Are you going to address my points or just ignore them and spout more logical fallacies and reasons why things can't be done without the state. Clearly you don't want to have a conversation, you just want to make statements.

I'd rather pay taxes into a common pool to keep myself in a stable, secure environment. Having secured transportation and access to secured markets seems like it offers a better life on average than having to raise my own security force.

It doesn't matter if that common pool goes to a king, lord,boss, government, or general as long as they hold up their end of the deal, I'll be safer and more successful.

Yep. I would rather trade anarchist freedom to be part of a group that mitigates risk and provide more chances to be successful, and thus more chances to be happy.

You call it enslavement, but the power of the tax collector rests on them upholding their end of the contract. while they are upholding their end of the deal, its a mutually beneficial, consensual arrangement that I would enter into willingly, which is quite different than slavery. Only when they fail to provide the security, stability, and enhanced chance of success does it become robbery or enslavement.

"The idea that somehow government prevents pollution is laughable, governments are the largest polluters on the planet-any idea what kind of disasters war produces?"

Some truth to that.

But, the CAFE standards that government has imposed on automobile makers has resulted in improved fuel economy and thus less pollution.

I remember living in L.A. in 1970s. Air pollution was much worse. Government imposed rules. Now pollution is better.

There's a mathamatical or logical problem that most people have to agree to reduce pollution even though the amount of pollution produced by an individual is insignificant. You need a "gubmint" to make everyone comply. There are a lot of problems like that.

"So just a little bit of evil is ok? Is it ok if i rob you "just a little bit", how about a punch in the nose-"not hard enough to break it" but just hard enough to make me feel better, is that ok?"

"I'd rather pay taxes into a common pool to keep myself in a stable, secure environment. Having secured transportation and access to secured markets seems like it offers a better life on average than having to raise my own security force.

Noone siad you had to raise your own security force, you could do like they do in detroit now, pay a few bucks a month to private security to protect you. That's fine if you'd rather pay taxes and be a slave than use a voluntary solution to transportation, but i dont want to so don't force me to, let me opt out.

"It doesn't matter if that common pool goes to a king, lord,boss, government, or general as long as they hold up their end of the deal, I'll be safer and more successful."

There is no deal, and to think you would trust politicans gave me a chuckle. Slave masters from the days of chattle slavery would provide their slaves certain freedoms because it made them more productive, the state provides us certain benefits because it makes us more productive, we produce more which in turn means they can TAKE more. That's it.

"You call it enslavement, but the power of the tax collector rests on them upholding their end of the contract. while they are upholding their end of the deal, its a mutually beneficial, consensual arrangement that I would enter into willingly, which is quite different than slavery. Only when they fail to provide the security, stability, and enhanced chance of success does it become robbery or enslavement."

I call it enslavement because thats exactly what it is, enslavement. You either own yourself and thus the product of your labor or you someone else does. It's that simple.

What contract? Show me a contract i signed to agree to be ruled by politicians and a government. A contract which changes overtime without the consent of the signer is void, as is a contract which never existed(in this case).

You didn't enter into this contract willingly since there never was a contract to begin with, and if you resist you will be forced into it. That it not a legal contract in any sense of the word.

Do you really think the government provides security, better opportunities and economic stability? The government provides nothing which they first did not steal from someone else, either directly or indirectly(inflation and borrowing)."Yep. I would rather trade anarchist freedom to be part of a group that mitigates risk and provide more chances to be successful, and thus more chances to be happy. "

More chances to be successful? I dont see how having barriers to entry that the state erects at the behest of corporations gives your more chances to be successful. I don't see how having 50%-75% less money makes you more likely to be succuessful or happy. I dont see how being thrown in jail or killed for purusing your happiness doing activities that the state made illegal but hurt noone makes you more happy.

"But, the CAFE standards that government has imposed on automobile makers has resulted in improved fuel economy and thus less pollution.

I remember living in L.A. in 1970s. Air pollution was much worse. Government imposed rules. Now pollution is better."

The CAFE standards serve the purpose that all regulations do, to create revenue for the state and to assist big corporations in keeping start ups and their competition out of the market. How many new car companies can you name?

The money for this new law as well as the bureaucracies is stolen money. Is it ok to rob a bank if you give half the money to charity?

Again, the market can handle this. Without a gun at their disposal, car companies would have long ago had to change their tune to be more in line with peoples demands for fuel efficient or completely electric cars. It is precisely because of the gun in the room that they are able to avoid changing, we have had advanced car tech for decades now and all we have to show for it is a few hybrids and a few electrics.

"Say what??? Now you're just getting loony : )"

You were excusing the existence of the state, saying that it was a necessary evil(if i remember correctly). Therefore it is logical to conclude from that assertion that it's ok to punch you in the face just a little because it's necessary, or its ok to steal from you just a little because its necessary. I'm trying to get you to see the logical issues with that position, once you say a little bit of evil is necessary, all else that is evil flows from that. Once you give one group of men the power to take a little and violate property rights and the non aggression principle, there will be no end to their abuses given time and the accumulation of stolen loot.

"If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists."Lysander Spooner

"No, I was saying that there are certain problems that you have to get everyone to comply, even though it's not in their individual best interest"

So because there are certain problems its ok to have some evil? These problems are so complex and so intricate that only the benevolent politician overlords could solve them. So again, your saying we have to have some evil to solver certain problems because otherwise we would not be able to solve them. Without pointing guns at each other, there is no way we can solve pollution issues.

I would argue that government is antithetical to a clean environment because it destroys property rights. Do you go around cleaning other peoples yards? Precisely because government property is not owned by an individual, noone is responsbile for its caretaking. Try to plant a garden on government owned land, watch what happens, you just might get swatted. The only way to take care of the environment is with the incentive of suing, if somone owns land that someone(or a company) pollutes, then the polluter can be sued. If the land is owned or quasi-owned by a governmnet in the way it distorts property rights, there is noone to sue for damages.

The state nukes the planet, destroys massive amounts of resources in war, pollutes with war, and PROTECTS CORPORATION FROM LIABILITY for thier pollution. In a free market where people actually had property rights, corporations would be held responsible, they wouldn't have the gun of the state to protect them from liability-such as with government contracts.

In a free market where prices are not manipulated, spontaneous market structures provide local-level communication to supply and demand networks, providing people with a better understanding of which resources are in short supply FAR better than any centralized plan would. Simply due to the fact that the centralized planned version of life will never be as responsive or accurate as the spontaneous-based on immediate market needs and demands version of life would be. The market would provide automatic incentives for the protection of resources, because if i was a producer i would want to ensure my resource remains. Take a food product that is banned from private production, say bald eagle feet(as a hypothetical). Say i am a producer of bald eagle feet, does it benefit me to go out and catch all the bald eagles or build a structure and start producing my own bald eagles? Would it benefit me to catch so many bald eagles that there are no more left? Of course not, I want to maintain my supply and safeguarding it is the best way to do that. The market has natural incentives for ecological protections and resource management.

"As long as every one else drives a less polluting car, it doesn't make any difference what I drive, I may as well drive a cheaper, more polluting car"

You do realize that cars like the prius cause way more damage to the environment because of the production methods that go into making them than do typical cars? Drive any car you want, driving a car is not an act of aggression.

And they all must enter the market with government permission. I would say they are entering because of the massive demand for better cars, how long have people been clamoring for more fuel efficient cars and we keep getting the same crap. I wonder which government skids they had to grease to get into the market. If they are being let in it is because the state sees some benefit(more stolen loot) to them getting in, the only time they would allow competition is if it would benefit them in some way. It is not in their interest to do so. Just wait, if they start cutting to deeply into the pockets of the established fascist corporations, some lobbyist will introduce a law to slow them down or shut them down. Just like those taxi companies in chicago and new york, i can't remember their names.

"How many new companies are successful with an anarchist employment arrangement ?"

I don't know what this means. There would be no barriers to entry other than natural ones in an anarchist society-like cost, R&D, etc. There would also be no intellectual property so that would remove a huge barrier.

No, there are some problems that require making everyone comply. That is not evil. Doing nothing is evil.

"if somone owns land that someone(or a company) pollutes, then the polluter can be sued"

yeah, at the government court

"You do realize that cars like the prius cause way more damage to the environment because of the production methods that go into making them than do typical cars? Drive any car you want, driving a car is not an act of aggression."

Cars, on average, have better fuel economy because of government standard. This is a good thing.

You and I agree that big companies and super wealthy people have bought the government which then does immoral things. Your solution is to get rid of government. Mine is for people to demand the government listen to them instead. Sort of like what happened in 1930s. I argue that government subsidized eduaction from 1940 to 1990 (or whatever) resulted in all this high tech stuff which I think is a good thing.

"No, there are some problems that require making everyone comply. That is not evil. Doing nothing is evil."

Why do you want to make everyone comply with what you or a group of people want? Shouldn't everyone be free to live as they see fit. Why should they comply with what you want? Seems kind of controlling of you.

How can you do evil by doing nothing? DOING EVIL implies action, what you said makes no sense.

I have pointed out to you repeatedly why government is evil, it takes by force against an individuals will then forces it's arbitrary will upon peaceful people. I have given you market solutions to pollution(the ocean thingys), i have shown you why government is the biggest polluter, i have shown you why the government has no incentive to care about pollution, i have discussed why property rights are the only way to prevent pollution or have a penalty for it, yet you still just parrot the same response. What is the point of me offering solutions if you just ignore them and say that we need government. Clearly this is some kind of mental block for you, until you want to have a conversation and actually discuss things i dont see the point in responding to you. What if you told me the solution to darkness is to buy lightbulbs and install them in your house, and i said but without government i cannot get lightbulbs. And i said that over and over and over. What would you think of me?

"yeah, at the government court"

Private dispute resolution organizations can do that without the government. Yes i know its hard to believe, but courts actually exist RIGHT NOW that are private.

"ars, on average, have better fuel economy because of government standard. This is a good thing."

The market was demanding better standards way before the government ever did anything about it. The governmnet did the same thing with the civil rights movement, the movement sprung up organically from the grass roots and people changed society, then the government ran infront of the parade and said: "LOOK WHAT WE DID, SEE THE SYSTEM WORKS."

Again, using stolen money and FORCE to change society is no worthy change at all and it is immoral. Stealing is immoral period, force is immoral period, there is no time when that is not true. I would also argue that changes created as a result of the use of force are a sort of false-accomplishment and not a reflection of people changing organically of its their own accord.

"You and I agree that big companies and super wealthy people have bought the government which then does immoral things. Your solution is to get rid of government. Mine is for people to demand the government listen to them instead. Sort of like what happened in 1930s. I argue that government subsidized eduaction from 1940 to 1990 (or whatever) resulted in all this high tech stuff which I think is a good thing."

You actually think politicians REPRESENT you? You think they care what lies they sell to people to get elected? Didn't barack obama run on transparency and peace? Now we see the opposite. The idea that government represents you is obviously false, if you don't want to believe that it's because you have some emotional connection to the issue.

How can you demand that the person using force and violence against you listen to you? That's like getting beat by a robber and screaming: "hey listen to me" "hey listen to me". The government is a monopoly of FORCE, they could care less what the people have to say.

So now the government is responsible for technology...people are responsible for technology. Government education is the surest way to create a submissive population just smart enough to run the factories and keep voting without thinking too much.

"Why do you want to make everyone comply with what you or a group of people want? Shouldn't everyone be free to live as they see fit. Why should they comply with what you want?"

The resources of the planet are finite. Just letting people do what they please will result in a degraded planet adversly affecting me and my relations and friends. Recognizing that and doing nothing is evil.

"So now the government is responsible for technology..."

Yeah!

Computers and integrated circuits were developed to calculate artillery tables and break codes during and after WWII.

The GI bill paid for millions education.

I got my education in 1960s and 1970s. Heavily government subsidized.

If there wern't government programs we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are now.